title: Animal abolitionism meets moral abolitionism : cutting the Gordian knot of applied ethics.
abstract: The use of other animals for human purposes is as contentious an issue as one is likely to find in ethics. And this is so not only because there are both passionate defenders and opponents of such use, but also because even among the latter there are adamant and diametric differences about the bases of their opposition. In both disputes, the approach taken tends to be that of applied ethics, by which a position on the issue is derived from a fundamental moral commitment. This commitment in turn depends on normative ethics, which investigates the various moral theories for the best fit to our moral intuitions. Thus it is that the use of animals in biomedical research is typically defended by appeal to a utilitarian theory, which legitimates harm to some for the greater good of others; while the opposition condemns that use either by appeal to the same theory, but disagreeing about the actual efficacy of animal experimentation, or by appeal to an alternative theory, such as the right of all sentient beings not to be exploited. Unfortunately, the normative issue seems likely never to be resolved, hence leaving the applied issue in limbo. The present essay seeks to circumvent this impasse by dispensing altogether with any moral claim or argument, thereby cutting the Gordian knot of animal ethics with a meta-ethical sword. The alternative schema defended is simply to advance relevant considerations, whereupon "there is nothing left but to feel." In a word, motivation replaces justification.
authors.affiliation: University of New Haven, West Haven, USA, jmarks@newhaven.edu.
authors.forename: Joel
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Marks
mesh_terms: D032761:Animal Experimentation / Q000941:ethics*; D017087:Animal Rights; D000818:Animals; D001675:Bioethics; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics*; D028663:Ethical Theory; D006801:Humans